Sorry for the typo..
this clears my doubt on charama jnAna
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Ravi Kiran <ravikiranm108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Namaste
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:11 PM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <
>lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com
>>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Ravi Kiran via Advaita-l <
>>advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>>>> Pranams
>>>>>> Thanks for the detailed response from *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*
>>>>>> Just sharing my understanding from this thread:
>>>>>> 1. akhaNDAkAravRttiH results in brahmavidyA or
>>> jivAtma paramAtma ekatva jnAna (knowledge of the mahAvAkya)
>>>>>>>> ​No. because, akhaNDAkArvRttiH is brahmavidyA.​
>>>> ​It's cause is mahAvvAkya, is correct.
>>>>> Thanks for the affirmation.
>>>>>> I don't know what do you mean by 'knowledge of mahAvAkya'. It should be
>> 'knowledge of mahAvAkyArtha'.
>>>> Thanks for the correction.
>>>>>>> 2. As per the below defintion of charama jnAna, other vRttis based on
>>> prArabdha
>>> ( though it is seen as bAdhita vRtti or sublation, in light of the
>>> charama
>>> vRtti )
>>> doesn't arise. There is just the unbroken homogeneous eka charama vRtti
>>>>>>> ​No. I didn't say or imply that.
>> As vRtti, even charama-vRtti, is dRshya; so I meant cessation of this
>> vRtti forever too​
>>>> ​by saying that no dRshya stays.
>>>> Ok, this clears my doubt on charana jnAna. Thanks for the clarification.
>>> ​
>>>>>>>> So, one would understand it as synonym to jnAna samAdhi, having no
>>> knowledge or awareness of the nAma rUpa prapaNcha.
>>>>>>> ​No. You can't compare it to samAdhi, because samAdhi​
>>>> ​is a mental modification of the form of cessation of all other mental
>> modifications​ and it doesn't affect prapa~ncha. While, the charama-vRtti
>> destroys every dRshya by destroying avidyA.
>>>> I fear that you are superimposing your present understanding on what I
>> presented. You need to be more open/vacant to understand new things, should
>> be remembered.
>>>>> In light of the above clarification, understood the purport and
> implications of your response in the earlier email. Thanks Again!
>> Pranams
>>>>>> Namaste
>>>>>>>>> Hari Om!
>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:55 AM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः via Advaita-l <
>>>advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>> > ​
>>> >
>>> > I'll not like to say anything about your use of those words of
>>> > different/one type of knowlede.
>>> > Let me clear my stand, although I have said it once on some forum
>>> already.
>>> >
>>> > The samyagdarshanam (correct knowledge?) is that which liberates, and
>>> that
>>> > is termed as akhaNDAkAravRttiH.
>>> > brahman is GYAna-svarUpa, but it is not opposed to aGYAna. We can see
>>> that
>>> > it is which illuminates aGYAna, etc. too. And, hence it is said that
>>> > अज्ञाततया ज्ञाततया च सर्व्वं साक्षिभास्यम् ।
>>> > So, the samyag-gyAna is vRttyupahita-chaitanyam. vRttiH again should be
>>> > brahmAkArA, otherwise it can't dispel aGYAnam of brahman. This is seen
>>> in
>>> > case of ghaTa-GYAnam and ghaTAgyAnam.
>>> > The akAraH of vRttiH is defined as the yogyatA(capacity/ability?) of
>>> > vRttiH, either paroxa or aparoxa, to ​dispel the aGYAna(which obstruct
>>> the
>>> > vyavahAra of pot, etc. as existing, shining, etc.);
>>> > or, it is the तत्सन्निकृष्टकरणजन्यत्वं (don't know enough English to
>>> > translate, sorry!) present in vRttiH.
>>> > So, the brahmAkAratvam of vRtti means that the ability of vRtti to
>>> dispel
>>> > ignorance of brahman which(ignorance) blocks(!?) vyavahAra(abhiGYA,
>>> > abhilapana, etc.) as 'exiting', 'shining/illuminating'.
>>> >
>>> > Now, the akhaNDAkAratva or niShprakAratva of vRttiH.
>>> > Just take it as if a vRttiH dispels ignorance of a pot, etc. but
>>> doesn't
>>> > objectify it's adjectives, it is niShprakArikA.
>>> > prakAra means adjectives. The vRtti which illuminates base, it's
>>> qualities
>>> > and their relation; is saprakArikA.
>>> >
>>> > advaitin-s, like madhusUdana-sarasvatI, etc. maintain that the
>>> > brahmAkAra-vRttiH should be niShprakArikA/akhaNDAkArA, if it has to be
>>> > liberating knowledge. Because, shrutiH itself says : tameva
>>> > viditvAtimRtyumeti. Here 'eva' implies that it should not illuminate
>>> pot
>>> > etc. /or parts / or qualities with brahman.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Now, charamatvam of GYAnam/vRtti.
>>> > If you accept that GYAna doesn't cause videhakaivalyam at once and
>>> leaves
>>> > way for prArabdha, i.e. if you accept jIvanmukti; then the knowledge of
>>> > brahman present in jIvanmukta is not charama. charama means final,
>>> after
>>> > which there is no appearance if duality, not even as mithyA or one with
>>> > you.
>>> >
>>> > ​You may not find this term in bhAShyam. It may have surfaced after
>>> facing
>>> > objections from others/or vedAntins themselves.
>>> > It is not essential that bhAShyam could always be supported by
>>> repeating
>>> > terms used by bhAShyakAra only.
>>> >
>>> > B: how 'akhanda' can have the 'AkAra' that too with 'vrutti' rUpa??
>>> Or is
>>> > it symbolically used to denote the sama darshana of the samyak jnAni??
>>> >
>>> > L: akhaNDa is not brahman here ​as you appear to imply. akhaNDAkAra of
>>> > vRtti means that it doesn't illuminate any adjective or relation. It
>>> just
>>> > dispels ignorance of / illuminates one thing, either brahman or pot
>>> without
>>> > revealing it's qualties and relations.
>>> > Note that akhaNDAkAravRtti or niShprakAravRtti or nirvikalpakavRtti are
>>> > synonyms in our system.
>>> > Also, note that such vRtti is not only brahmAkArA. When one replies to
>>> > question 'which is moon' as 'prakRShTaprakAshaH chandraH', the sentence
>>> > generates akhaNDAkAravRtti; because the question was not about quality.
>>> >
>>> > Any person who wants to know more, is suggested to study books
>>> mentioned.
>>> >
>>> > I'll add that I don't expect that any of you should accept such
>>> definition.
>>> > It is actually difficult to accept it, just because your studies are
>>> > limited to bhAShyam/translations, etc. These terms can't be related to
>>> > bhAShyam directly, I accept. Those who stand on translations, will
>>> find it
>>> > more difficult because terms are from Sanskrit language, related to
>>> complex
>>> > system of thought/argument, and because I don't know how to explain
>>> them in
>>> > English with examples.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > *श्रीमल्ललितालालितः*www.lalitaalaalitah.com
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/>>> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita>>> >
>>> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l>>> >
>>> > For assistance, contact:
>>> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/>>>http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>>http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l>>>>>> For assistance, contact:
>>>listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org>>>>>>>>